I've been working as the Social Media Editor and a staff writer at Forbes since October 2011. Prior to that, I worked as a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research. Follow me on Twitter - @thealexknapp. You can email me at aknapp@forbes.com

Marco Rubio: There's 'No Scientific Debate On The Age Of The Earth'

In an interview with Mike Allen, Florida Senator Marco Rubio clarified his comments to GQ regarding the age of the universe, telling Allen that: “There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old.”

To be honest, I’d encourage you to watch the video. I was impressed – I thought his answer was forthright and interesting. In particular, I appreciated that he stated, “Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And I think that scientific advances have given us insight into when he did it and how he did it, but I still believe God did it.”

I’m sure that’s going to raise some guff with some more militant atheists out there, but I think that there’s a real wisdom in reconciling one’s religious faith and the teachings of science. They address two separate fields of inquiry. Science is about logos – the facts about the world we live in. But religion is about mythos – the truths about how we should live in this world.

That said, while I appreciated Rubio’s comments, I still take issue with his statement in GQ that “I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.” As a stated in my previous essay about Rubio’s remarks, scientific inquiry has a great deal to do with the the economy and the world around us. I’m glad that Rubio, who sits on the Senate Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation, recognizes the importance of science and doesn’t see it as the enemy of his religion. But I’m still concerned that he doesn’t understand the connection between scientific inquiry and our future economic growth.

But who knows – perhaps he’ll address that later. Frankly, I was really impressed by Rubio’s conversation with Allen, which was devoid of the usual evasive pablum you see from politicians handling this issue. I take issue with some of the stuff he says, but his comments indicate a real passion for thinking about different ideas. That’s an encouraging sign for a politician.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

“I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.”

which has absolutely no context for what you later asserted was a lack of understanding in how scientific inquiry affects economics. Unless you believe specifically that scientific inquiry into the age of the universe is going to affect the economy (to the extent of his context on economy) then your assertion is faulty. Which is where we see that you’ve generalized Rubio’s understanding of scientific influence on economics all the way down to “I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.” which you’ve said makes him in essence ignorant in a worry-some way.

If you do not realize that your own previous article (Why Marco Rubio Needs to Know…” is based upon foolish premises meant only for web traffic and to “stir the pot” of the atheist vs. theist debate, then you have no business taking about science or anything intellectual.

Using your own article as a reference point of fact is laughable, for the article makes no point substantiated by facts. Your suggestion is that anyone that does not believe the way you do regarding religion and science is incompetent to hold office or make any kind of intelligent contributions regarding government policy. It is bigotry dressed up to look scientific.

A scientific approach would measure whether theists have contributed to scientific inquiry, or even government policy as it relates to the sciences, as compared to atheists and the like. You could also measure the scientific contributions of theists vs. atheists. But that would not likely yield a finding of fact that would support your personal conclusion. Isaac Newton (mathematics, physics), Galileo (astrophysics, optics), Robert Boyle (chemistry, physics), Johannes Kepler (mathematics, astonomy, optics), Michael Faraday (physics, electricity, magnetism), Gregor Mendel (genetics, mathematics) Max Plank (physics, quantum theory) etc. – all spiritually devoted Christians. Its a good thing they were not having to deal with your all-wise rapier-intellect sword of scientific disqualification, the “in” or “out” gateway of permissions in the sciences.

There is no way that anyone could conclude from observational data or mathematical theory, that the 204 billion atom molecular database, the human DNA molecule could come about by any means but intentional , highly technical, design. Any suggestion to the contrary is not based on fact or sound scientific theory. (This is especially so as it would be unable to replicate itself without it being in a complex working cell, and the information coded in it’s database is incredibly intelligent, beyond our own present level of production as humans.) Only those ignorant of real scientific data or dishonest could suggest otherwise.

Even so, I would not advocate that people who hold a contrary belief be excluded from scientific discussion or policy positions.

Alex, I think this backs up the point that many of us made in response to your prior article, which is basically that I think you were making a mountain out of the molehill of his previous comment.

He was speaking (as best I can tell, and I think this comment cements that) within the realm of policy decisions, not within the realm of technology.

For instance, let’s say for some reason there was some ridiculous disagreement about the boiling temperature of water. I could well say that the boiling temperature of water makes no bigger impact on how we (as politicians) are going to grow our economy, further than whether we’re able to brew enough coffee to keep us awake and alert.

It’d be a true statement- the boiling point of water isn’t meaningful to policy decisions, even though it is obviously meaningful to how our economy works as a whole. The same applies to the excellent examples you mentioned- radioactive decay and the speed of light.

“usual evasive pablum” is driven by politicians who seek to ridicule personl beliefs and values. We don’t ask the question to gain insight in to what makes the man tick, but to gsap an opportunity to ridicule. Evasive is the only resonable response for a politician becuse somebody will be offended no matter what an individuals perspective is on any topic. You can’t be a successful politician by speaking honestly.

I agree with Nathaniel James. This article acknowledges that Rubio has valid points about the age of the universe. Knapp then shifts the ground to express his concern that Rubio does not understand that “scientific inquiry has a great deal to do with the the economy and the world around us.” But that’s not what Rubio said; he just said that the AGE OF THE UNIVERSE doesn’t have to do with the economy.